You are on page 1of 1

Calalas vs. CA - Extent of liability Held: Yes.

Facts:

At 10 oclock in the morning of August 23, 1989, private respondent Eliza Jujeurche G. Sunga, then The petitioner contends that Sunga is already bound by the ruling in the RTC and hence, the
a college freshman majoring in Physical Education at the Siliman University, took a passenger proximate cause of the accident was the truck, making the event a caso fortuito. However, the
jeepney owned and operated by petitioner Vicente Calalas. As the jeepney was filled to capacity issue in the RTC was whether Salva and his driver Verena were liable for quasi-delict for the
of about 24 passengers, Sunga was given by the conductor an "extension seat," a wooden stool damage caused to petitioner’s jeepney.
at the back of the door at the rear end of the vehicle. Sclaw
Thus, It is immaterial that the proximate cause of the collision between the jeepney and the truck
On the way to Poblacion Sibulan, Negros Occidental, the jeepney stopped to let a passenger off. was the negligence of the truck driver. The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in
As she was seated at the rear of the vehicle, Sunga gave way to the outgoing passenger. Just as actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach of contract.
she was doing so, an Isuzu truck driven by Iglecerio Verena and owned by Francisco Salva bumped
the left rear portion of the jeepney. As a result, Sunga was injured. She sustained a fracture of Where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties
the "distal third of the left tibia-fibula with severe necrosis of the underlying skin." Closed themselves who create the obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate the
reduction of the fracture, long leg circular casting, and case wedging were done under sedation. relation thus created-determine whether there is extraordinary diligence performed
Her confinement in the hospital lasted from August 23 to September 7, 1989. Her attending
In the case at bar, it was found that the jeep was not properly parked, its rear portion exposed
physician, Dr. Danilo V. Oligario, an orthopedic surgeon, certified she would remain on a cast for
on the shoulder of the road. It also took more than the capacity of the vehicle, in violation of the
a period of three months and would have to ambulate in crutches during said period.
LTT code.
On October 9, 1989, Sunga filed a complaint for damages against Calalas, alleging violation of the
The assumption of risk does not apply to taking an extension seat. It is akin to arguing that the
contract of carriage by the former in failing to exercise the diligence required of him as a common
injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely
carrier. Calalas, on the other hand, filed a third-party complaint against Francisco Salva, the
because those passengers assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry.
owner of the Isuzu truck. Korte
2. No.
The lower court rendered judgment against Salva as third-party defendant and absolved Calalas
of liability, holding that it was the driver of the Isuzu truck who was responsible for the accident.
As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a
It took cognizance of another case (Civil Case No. 3490), filed by Calalas against Salva and Verena,
breach of contract for it is not one of the items enumerated under Art. 2219 of the Civil Code. As
for quasi-delict, in which Branch 37 of the same court held Salva and his driver Verena jointly
an exception, such damages are recoverable: (1) in cases in which the mishap results in the death
liable to Calalas for the damage to his jeepney. Rtcspped
of a passenger, as provided in Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2206(3) of the Civil Code; and (2) in
the cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith, as provided in Art. 2220.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the ruling of the lower court was reversed on the ground that
Sungas cause of action was based on a contract of carriage, not quasi-delict, and that the
In this case, there is no legal basis for awarding moral damages since there was no factual finding
common carrier failed to exercise the diligence required under the Civil Code. The appellate court
by the appellate court that petitioner acted in bad faith in the performance of the contract of
dismissed the third-party complaint against Salva and adjudged Calalas liable for damages to
carriage. Sungas contention that petitioners admission in open court that the driver of the
Sunga.
jeepney failed to assist her in going to a nearby hospital cannot be construed as an admission of
bad faith. The fact that it was the driver of the Isuzu truck who took her to the hospital does not
Issue:
imply that petitioner was utterly indifferent to the plight of his injured passenger. If at all, it is
1.Whether or not the petitioner should be held liable? merely implied recognition by Verena that he was the one at fault for the accident.

2. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to moral damages.